Re: [PATCH] firmware: smccc: default ARM_SMCCC_SOC_ID to disabled

[Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com>]

On Mon, Jan 19, 2026 at 06:44:23PM +0200, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 19, 2026 at 02:53:42PM +0000, Sudeep Holla wrote:
> > On Sun, Jan 18, 2026 at 03:16:50PM -0600, Bjorn Andersson wrote:
> > > On Sun, Jan 18, 2026 at 02:31:23PM +0000, Sudeep Holla wrote:
> > > 
> > > To me, when you decided to add a second caller to soc_device_register()
> > > you created a regression in the userspace interface. If nothing else
> > > it's a leaky abstraction.
> > > 
> > 
> > In that case, shouldn't soc_device_register() made to give error when an
> > attempt to call it more that one time then ? Also should be change the
> > ABI documents to refer it as soc0 and not socX ?
> 
> Then the whole SoC bus is an overkill. But I have a strange question
> here. Consider the device having the "BT / WiFi SoC" next to the main
> SoC. Is that SoC a legit target to export informaiton through sysfs /
> soc bus?
> 

Just for clarity, I agree with you and there could be duplication of
information if there are multiple source for that information. E.g.,
the setup in this discussion where the EL3 firmware provides SOC_ID
information via SMCCC SOC_ID and DT providing vendor specific information
about the platform. Both are getting exported via sysfs but the problem
here is SOC_ID has displaced vendor specific DT info from soc0 to soc1.

We are exploring ways to see how user space can survive this.

-- 
Regards,
Sudeep